Bengaluru, January 21, 2023 – The LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-59) in Bengaluru granted anticipatory bail to Ashish Bansal @ Ashish, a 28-year-old resident of Haryana and Bengaluru, in connection with a cheating and criminal breach of trust case. The order, passed on January 21, 2023, in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 497/2023, pertains to Crime No. 04/2023 registered at the RMC Yard Police Station for offences under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The court, presided over by Sri N. Krishnaiah, allowed the petition primarily because the First Information Report (FIR) and the original complaint did not name Ashish Bansal and lacked any specific overt act attributed to him.

The Allegations: A Sophisticated Refund Fraud Scheme

The case was initiated based on a complaint lodged on January 10, 2023, concerning incidents that allegedly occurred between December 26, 2022, and January 9, 2023.

The complainant, representing a large e-commerce entity (though not explicitly named, the modus operandi points to online trading), alleged that the accused persons executed a systematic fraud. The scheme involved creating approximately 120 fictitious accounts to place orders for low-value FMCG products (Fast-Moving Consumer Goods). The products were delivered to only two addresses in Bengaluru.

The accused, allegedly aware of the company’s less refund policy, subsequently forced the company to provide refunds by falsely claiming that the delivered goods were defective. Through this method, the accused purportedly received a refund amount of approximately Rs. 2,80,000/-, thereby cheating the complainant company. The court documents indicate the FIR was initially registered against unknown persons.

Petitioner’s Defense and Prosecution Opposition

Ashish Bansal, represented by his counsel Sri Keshavaiah K.C., argued forcefully for anticipatory bail, asserting his innocence and claiming he had been falsely implicated. Key arguments presented by the petitioner included:

• Lack of Specificity: His name was not reflected in the complaint or the FIR, which was filed against unknown individuals, indicating no specific role or overt act was attributed to him.
• Delay in Filing: The complaint was lodged on January 10, 2023, concerning incidents that concluded on January 9, 2023, suggesting an unexplainable delay.
• No Criminal Antecedents: The petitioner claimed to hail from a respectable family, having deep roots in society, and possessed no criminal background or bad antecedent.
• Cooperation: He expressed his willingness to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application. The opposition focused on the grounds that the petitioner was indeed involved in the offences and that the investigation was still under progress. A major concern raised by the prosecution was the petitioner’s residency in Haryana, a different state, raising fears that he might abscond from the court’s jurisdiction if released, thereby hindering a fair investigation.

Court’s Reasoning: Prima Facie Case Against Unknown Persons

The court acknowledged the gravity of the allegations concerning the refund fraud but placed significant weight on the lack of direct evidence connecting Ashish Bansal to the crime at the preliminary stage.

The Judge noted: “But, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the name of this petitioner is not reflected either in the complaint or in the FIR… The complainant does not know, who has committed the alleged offences. Hence, there is no specific overt act attributed against this petitioner to connect with the alleged offences.”

While recognizing the prosecution’s contention that investigation was ongoing, the court found no prima facie material sufficient to believe that Bansal (referred to as accused No. 3 in the arguments, though not named in the initial FIR) was definitively involved.

Furthermore, the court considered:

1. Nature of Offences: The offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC are non-bailable but are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and are exclusively triable by a Magistrate.
2. No Criminal Background: The petitioner’s claim of having no criminal antecedent weighed in his favour.
3. Jurisdiction Concern: Regarding the apprehension of the petitioner absconding due to being a resident of a different state, the court determined that this sole ground was insufficient to reject the bail. It concluded that stringent conditions could be imposed to serve the purpose of the investigation and prevent flight risk.

The court ultimately ruled that it was a fit case to exercise its discretionary power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., thereby answering the point in the affirmative.

Bail Conditions Imposed

To ensure the petitioner’s cooperation and adherence to the legal process, the court imposed a series of strict conditions:

1. Bail Bond and Sureties: The petitioner must execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum.
2. Cash Security: The petitioner is required to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cash security before the learned Magistrate.
3. Cooperation: The petitioner must appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and co-operate for investigation as and when called for.
4. Appearance Timeline: The petitioner must appear before the respondent police within 15 days from the date of the order.
5. Address Proof: He must furnish his correct address proof before the respondent police.
6. Non-Tampering: He shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses or documents.
7. Court Attendance: He must attend the court regularly on all dates of hearing without fail.
8. Future Conduct: He shall not commit similar offences in the future.

This ruling underscores the legal principle that anticipatory bail cannot be denied merely because an investigation is ongoing, especially when the specific allegations against the petitioner lack concrete grounding in the initial complaint and the offences are not of the most heinous nature.